Back
GANESH RAM MEENA
Moti Lal Son of Govind Ram (Since Deceased) through His Legal Heirs – Appellant
Versus
Urmila Devi Daughter Of Sita Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the respondents/plaintiffs No.1 & 2 namely; Urmila Devi & Sita Ram (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the respondents’) filed a suit before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 11 bigha situated in Village Sri Madhopur, District Sikar. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing the written statement wherein denied the averments of the plaint.
2. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed by the defendants under Order IX Rules 2 & 5 CPC stating that the suit has been filed on false and fabricated facts and the plaintiffs are not taking necessary steps for service of summons upon the defendants and prayed to dismiss the suit.
The Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar, vide order dated 02.05.2013 dismissed the suit in default observing that since 29.07.2008 the plaintiffs have not made any efforts for service of summon upon the defendants and in such a situation the suit proceedings cannot be continued for the unending period. The Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Madhopur ordered to
An order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 5 CPC is not an appealable order under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 but can be challenged by filing a revision petition under S....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal, and the court's consideration of the maintainability ....
Revisions under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are maintainable only against final decisions; interim orders do not constitute 'decided cases'.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be disposed of before trial; failure constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting revision.
Revision petitions against ad-interim orders are not maintainable under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as such orders are not 'decided cases'.
Revision – Law mandates maintainability of revision petition only in a “decided” case by subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies and secondly, on the ground of jurisdictional error committed b....
Revision petitions under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not maintainable against interim orders, which are not final adjudications, reinforcing the distinction between revisional and ap....
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
